Talk:Alby, Öland
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
Alby, Öland has been listed as a good article under the good-article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can delist it, or ask for a review. | ||||||||||||
 |
An entry from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know? column on October 10, 2007. | ||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||
Contents |
[edit] Sections
Suggestion: Split up "Geology and history" into separate sections. Then have times as subsections. - Francis Tyers · 16:00, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Footnotes
Footnotes go after periods, not before. Rlevse 23:26, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
[edit] GA on hold
This article will be put on hold (for 7 days) until these minor adjustments can be made :
- 1. Well written? Fail
- 2. Factually accurate? Pass
- 3. Broad in coverage? Fail
- 4. Neutral point of view? Pass
- 5. Article stability? Pass
- 6. Images? Pass
Additional comments :
- Make sure that all the inline citations appear after the punctuation.
- The lead section introduces material that isn't talked about in the rest of the article.
- Many elements are still not presented in the article : demography, geographical situation (not only in the lead), when were the excavations done, and many other facets of life there.
Lincher 00:39, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Editing to respond to above comments
All of the comments seem appropriate and i have endeavoured to respond to each comment. In particular, i have:
- Split Geology and Ancient history into two separate sections
- Expanded Geology material by factor of two
- Expanded Early history by factor of two
- Revised footnote format to appear after periods
- Added a new section on demography and current aspect to discuss demography and land use
- Added material as needed in the text to insure that intro material is further discussed in the body
- Added some additional links and done some copy editing to improve writing quality
Please remark upon how well these edits fulfill the needs for GA status. thank you. Anlace 03:27, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
- I like those modifications. I think it now needs to have more inline citations to give credit to the additions (since they were done recently, it will be easy) and it will also help the verifiability. Lincher 20:44, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
-
- I have added four new in line citations including two entirely new reference sources to support the new material. Thanks for that comment. I think the article is much improved. let me know if anything further is needed. Regards. Anlace 21:47, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
[edit] GA passed
Work has been done in order to include material upon the above comments. It now is a good article. Lincher 12:09, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
